1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ask about Jehovah's Witnesses

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by WitnessofJah, Nov 11, 2004.

  1. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    You have asked many questions, Helpme. :) I am going to have to break this post up into several smaller posts because the answers are so long.



    YHWH is not the only name which has been “translated” in the Bible. Your analogy of “Carlos” and “Charles” is correct, however, when you cross international horizons, a Hebrew name has to be “translated” slightly so that they can pronounce it. For example, the Apostle John in the Bible is referred to as the apostle “Juan” in Spain, “Jean” in France, “Johannes” in Germany, and most importantly, “Yohhanan” in Hebrew, it’s original pronunciation. This shows us that the original Hebrew names change to a degree according to the country that it is in – and the name YHWH is no exception. “Jehovah” is the name in English, however the name “Jehovah” is not the same in Spain, France, Germany or any other country for that matter. So with that said, let me go into the name “Jehovah”, which is the English translation of the Holy name.

    “Jehovah” is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton (from Greek te·tra-, meaning “four,” and gram´ma, “letter”). These four letters (written from right to left) are יהוה and may be transliterated into English as YHWH (or, JHVH).

    You may question how JHVH became JEHOVAH and how those particular vowels in that name came to be. The reasoning behind that is that originally, the Hebrew name YHWH had no vowels but only consonants, which created difficulty in translating the name from Hebrew. Also, the correct pronunciation of the name was also generally forgotten and lost over time since they first wrote the pages in the Bible. So what was to be done?​

    Vowel signs in Hebrew copies of the Bible came into use first in the seventh century of our Common Era. These signs indicated which vowel sounds were to be used when reading the all-consonant Hebrew text. By combining those warning vowel signs with the four Hebrew consonants, the pronunciations Yehowih´ and Yehowah´ were formed, from which we derive “Jehovah” in the English language. It was thus introduced into English translations of the Bible, including the King James Version of about 350 years ago.



    I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean that I have not defended ‘Jesus the person’, or “Jesus” the name? If yes, you are referring to “Jesus” the name, the reason why I have not defended is because nobody has asked me about Jesus name in this thread….?



    Strictly speaking, you are correct that “Yahweh” is the closest interpretation to the original name, so why do we use the name “Jehovah”? Because the form “Jehovah” has been familiar to people for many centuries, and that form of The Name, just as faithfully as other forms, preserves the sounds of the four consonants of the tetragrammaton. Furthermore, we do not speak Hebrew today! We speak other languages. When we speak English, for example, then we use the English pronunciation of the Divine Name, which is “Jehovah.” In other languages the divine name is pronounced differently, although quite similarly most of the time.

    Those who reject the English “Jehovah” and insist on using the Hebrew pronunciation would do well to ask themselves why they say “Jesus Christ,” when that was not the way his name was pronounced in Hebrew. That is the English way, derived from the Greek language. In Hebrew, Jesus would be closer to “Yehóshua” and Christ would be “Mashíahh.” So, as we say “Jesus Christ” in the English language, we also say “Jehovah,” both being correct when speaking English.



    This again comes down to language. The name “Jesus Christ” and many other Hebrew names in the Bible neither accurately represent their original names either.



    The name “Jehovah” is not a mistaken name, it is simply the name used in the English language (see my explanation above). And since the Pope lives in Italy, the name “Jehovah” would not have been used anyway since it is English, however, the Latin/Italian word for it would have been “Geova” in Italian and something similar in Latin. As far as the name “Jehovah” or it’s equivalent been founded 1518, that is very debatable since those names can be founded further back than that date in ancient churches and archaeological stones/tablets.

     
  2. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7


    By taking a letter or two away from any word, you can change it’s meaning – and that includes the name Jehovah. Your references of the word “hovah” are most probably valid, but “hovah” is not “Jehovah” are neither are their meanings. The name (Je·ho´vah) [the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wah´ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become”]. This shows us that those two examples do not mean the same thing. You can say that about any word: “Grand” and “And” sound very similar, and they both have “and” in their word – but the meaning is worlds apart. J So by taking away the prefix of “Je” in the name “Jehovah”, you are changing it’s meaning entirely.



    The reason why we report on the Ministry hours is for organizational reasons. As Jehovah’s Witnesses we try and be as organized as possible and as orderly as possible. Why is this? Well because by doing this, it helps us to be concise in our efforts and our preaching goals and we can also monitor out progress from year to year (negative or positive). We would prefer doing this than to be in a slack and half-hazardous fashion where we don’t know whether we are coming or going. This system is not supposed to influence you to do more ministry, it is simply a basic protocol we use to moniter ourselves. There is no biblical backing to this procedure, however we do know that God is person of organization (look at his creation) and so were his biblical followers. The apostle Paul said about himself in Titus 1:5: “The reason I left you behind in Crete was for you to get everything organized there.” Also, read the entire books of Numbers and Leviticus in the Bible – which are God’s “records” in which he keeps the nation of Israel in an organized and orderly state. Clearly then, organization is something to be desired, not avoided.

    As far as beards go, we have many members who have beards, it is not a biblical sin. However, it is encouraged to keep our beards short for the sake of cleanliness and presentation – this is purely down to the individual and is not a command. As far as wearing street clothes on the ministry, this depends on the situation. For example, if we are knocking on door-to-door, we wear suits and dresses and are smart. The reason why we wear smart clothing is because we want to appear professional, organized, and non-evasive, we don’t want to wear clothing that will detract from our message rendering all our hard work pointless. On the other hand, if we are at work where we are obviously wearing non-formal clothing then it is totally permissible.

    When you say ‘to defend yourself despite all your mistakes and prophecies’, what exact prophecies and mistakes do you have in mind? If you care to elaborate then I will try and give you an answer. J
     
  3. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7


    We are not trying to intimidate people in the slightest. The scriptures speak for themselves (Read Matthew 24). If the Bible did not have these verses, then we would not be saying what we say – it’s that simple. You say that we are using these scriptures to intimidate people – but on the flip side of the coin – can you explain the reason why these verses are actually exist in the Bible in the first place? The reason why they are there is because God wants us to KNOW that they are there, hence us preaching them (Matt 24:14).




    As far as good career’s go, I know plenty of people who have done well academically while being JW’s, in fact some of these people actually have MD’s and PhD’s! I’m not sure where you got the ‘not allowed to go college from’, but it is definitely a myth.

    Your friend ‘being discouraged and talked out’ of playing professional football is also an individual matter. The only reason why we “advise” a little on this is because a super-famous high-flying career may risk the person’s spiritual relationship with God – which is priceless. We would be wrong to “enforce” this in the slightest, but you have to remember that we are doing it for the best interests of the person. :)

    Matthew 6:19-21 says: “Stop storing up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 Rather, store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. This scripture emphasizes spiritual values over materialistic values, however neither does it say that you have to be poor to follow God – it’s just a matter of maintaining a good balance of the two and putting things into perspective.



    What do you mean we that we don’t use the word “Church”?

    If you mean that we don’t use it in our vocabulary, you’re absolutely wrong, of course we do, it’s everyday language. We just don’t use the term to describe our place of worship, which is called the kingdom hall. I’m not sure where you extracted that idea, but that is the first time that I’ve heard of it. ;)



    This is one of the scriptures in which our name is based and also explains our preaching work. :)

    WitnessofJah
     
  4. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    I was not questioning your logic or your opinion on the Trinity.... I was just stating the fact that without belief in the Trinity, I feel you are not Christian.... not that I mean it in a negative way, it's just a fact.

    On a side note: .... thanks again for your posts.... you are a wonderful addition to the forum!

    Peace be with you,
    Scott
     
  5. Druidus

    Druidus Keeper of the Grove

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,816
    Ratings:
    +515
    Not to be rude, SOGFPP, but I think he is a Christian, if we look at the definition.

    1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. (He does)
    2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings. (It is)
    3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike. (Can't answer; don't know)
    4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents. (It is)
    5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane. (I believe he does, don't know though)
    n.

    1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. (He does)
    2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus. (He does)
     
  6. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Not rude at all, Druidus..... like I said before.... I am using MY definition.

    I would like to point out that using your definition.... I think Witness would give different answers.... we shall see!

    Scott
     
  7. Druidus

    Druidus Keeper of the Grove

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,816
    Ratings:
    +515
    I understand. It would be nice to see your definition, though, if you don't mind. :)
     
  8. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Maybe on another thread.... let's stay on topic.
     
  9. Green Gaia

    Green Gaia Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,780
    Ratings:
    +1,927
    There actually is a thread for that discussion, guys... it's called, "Define Christian" and I believe it can be found in the Christian forum.
     
  10. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    I have a question. If you don't mind, I'd like to go back to a statement that was made earlier about Jesus being the first of God's creation. Ware there any other passages besides The colossians 1:15 passage that indicate Jesus as being created? Thanks
     
  11. SoulTYPE

    SoulTYPE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,252
    Ratings:
    +121
    I'd had thought the Earth was one of God's first creations.
     
  12. SoulTYPE

    SoulTYPE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,252
    Ratings:
    +121
    PS: technically speaking Linux, he was created, so to speak.
     
  13. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    Well, Witness of Jehova said that Jesus was the first of all creations. I was just wondering why he says that.
     
  14. SoulTYPE

    SoulTYPE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,252
    Ratings:
    +121
    I was also, dude. Sounds odd doesn't it.
     
  15. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7




    Yes, there are a few other passages in the Bible that refer to Jesus being the firstborn, even though Colossians 1:15 is the best one. :) There are also other scriptures that help 're-enforce' Colossians 1:15 also. Here they are:



    Jesus in Revelation 3:14 refers to himself as "the beginning of God’s creation."Here it says: "And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce´a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God."

    Micah 5:2 says: “And you, O Beth´le·hem Eph´ra·thah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.” This verse shows us that Jesus existence goes back “to the days of time indefinite”, which can be understood to be before any other creation, which includes other angelic creations, which therefore “supports” Colossians 1:15.

    John 1:1-3: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.” This verse is a verse which refers to Jesus as “the Word” (which he was commonly referred to after his death). This scripture describes how nothing came into existence before him (Jesus).



    Also, going back to the original verse that you quoted, Colossians 1:15, let us also examine the following verses after it and also let us scrutinize the meaning of these verses and why they were used:



    Colossians 1:15-17: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist.”



    If you read verses 16 and 17, it clearly tells us that ‘he was created before the invisible and visible creations’ which in otherwords, means everything other than God himself. In verse 17, it also says he was before ‘all other things’ also, which re-enforces verse 15 of the same chapter.



    Additionally, the original Greek scriptures in their original writings which were used describe the word “firstborn” was also significant to support this argument. The Greek words for both “first-born” (protótokos) and “beginning” (arkhé) describe Jesus as the first one of a group of class. The same Greek words occur in the Greek Septuagint translation at Genesis 49:3: “Ruben, thou art my first-born [protótokos], thou my strength, and the first [arkhé, “beginning”] of my children.” From such Biblical statements it is reasonable to conclude that the Son of God is the firstborn of all creation in the sense of being the first of God’s creatures.
     
  16. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    The earth was definitley one of God's first physical creations, however God's spiritual and angelic creations go back way further than this planet. "When Jehovah created the earth, all of his holy angels "joyfully cried out together, and all the sons of God began shouting in applause." (Job 38:7) Clearly then, the angelic creations were there before the earth and actually applauded God's wonderful creation of this planet.
     
  17. SoulTYPE

    SoulTYPE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,252
    Ratings:
    +121
    I know there were these angels and such before the Earth, jahdude. I don't believe God created them all. (Well he may have to some, but it is not my belief is that it was)
     
  18. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    Angels cannot reproduce their own kind or marry - God created them all. :) Matthew 22:30 says: "For in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven." So therefore, God compares the angels to resurrected being in the sense that they can neither marry or reproduce.

    God would have created the angels just like he would have created Jesus. Everything had a beginning, including the angels, other than God himself.
     
  19. SoulTYPE

    SoulTYPE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,252
    Ratings:
    +121
    Sorry, that wasn't what I was referring to. I meant there were other creators besides God.
    Not many, but meh.

    Cntinue your preaching. Don't mind me. I just talk out of my ***.
     
  20. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    As you might gather from the rest of this post, I disagree. But I don't want you to misinterpret my intentions, I just think you have some misconceptions. I think you need to get your definitions and meanings straight. "Protokos" signifies preeminince over something, not "first to be born". And in referrence to the Genesis passage, I don't know what translation you are using (i'm guessing by the souind of it, the King James Version), but none of the modern translations that I've seen use the language you mention here. the New American Standard version even uses the word "preeminent" in speaking of Reuben's position in the family. The first-born (although Reuben was the literal first-born of his family, that is not the point of the passage) always received the greatest inheritance, and was always the most important of all the children.

    But if you go back up to verse 14, you will see that "Him" refers to Jesus, not God. Meaning that Jesus created all things as well as God. Jesus IS God.


    This passage only states that Jesus was there at the time of creation. That cannot be used as exclusive proof or even evidence that that means He was created. Being present at creation doesn't mean exclusively that Jesus had been created (although it doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't created either).

    Once again, your translation is off. Look at the other translations of this passage. You will see that the word was not a god, it was GOD. Look at some translations of the passage, there are mor accurate ones out there. You can see most of them here at www.biblegateway.com

    I recommend the NIV the NASB, and the NKJV. they come more accurately from the greek text.
     
Loading...